> SC: Precisely. Whatever way any such properly
> conducted scientific results go, there will be
> folks on either side of this particular divide
> ready to denounce those results. Fact is - I have
> received communication from Egyptologists and
> archaeologists who, having read HOAX (and my
> subsequent articles), believe I have presented
> sufficient questions around these painted marks
> and are of the opinion that the marks now need to
> be scientifically tested (using non-destructive
> means if possible).
Try to understand the words you use.
Facts are established. Facts are proven. Your merely saying it doesn’t make it so.
We’ve been through this before: how one “Egyptologist” responding to The Secret Chamber of Osiris was brought forward as responding to HOAX—and then, in a fortnight, by some process of mitosis, became several alleged “Egyptologists”. All without a scrap of evidence. Links in this recent post:
No fact has been presented.
One novelty: the Egyptologists are now Egyptologists and archaeologists. I wonder if Erdmann and Görlitz are among them and this is your excuse for persisting in the claim. Seeing as how your friends of the A.R.E. call David Hatcher Childress an archaeologist, we may fairly wonder what lies behind the designation.
I never got an answer on the highest qualification of your “Egyptologist friend”. Imagine my surprise.
The fact of the matter is this: if a handful of impressionable graduates have been taken in by HOAX, they have proven their incompetence, nothing more.
> I can't promise anything, of course, but there are
> currently small moves afoot. Not sure if it will
> gain traction but watch this space. Can't say any
> more than that.
You can’t promise anything, but you can make promissory noises.
Edited 2019-02-08 to insert a missing word.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-Feb-19 23:30 by Martin Stower.